Hi everyone, welcome back to the Daily Gospel Exegesis podcast. Thanks so much for your support. I hope you're benefiting from this approach to Scripture where every day we're looking at the Gospel reading from today's Mass. This is, as far as I know, the only Catholic podcast that does this, where every day we're trying to dive into the readings from today's Mass and look at the literal sense of the text.
So this is a bonus episode today where we're going to do some Q&A, responding to some questions that have come in from the listeners. So hopefully you find this useful. First question we want to look at is from Mondani, and I've had to reword this a bit because I wasn't 100% sure what he was asking. In some of the sentences, he says we knew how important the Easter Sunday was. Why do we Christians disregard
the Sabbath of Muslims and Jews? So we'll stop there at this point because it is worth talking about the distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. The best place to go for this actually, I think, is the Catechism. The Catechism has a whole section on the commandment you shall honor the Sabbath, and it goes into quite a bit of detail about how Catholics understand the Sabbath. Because it's not that the Sabbath was annulled with the coming of Jesus.
That's not entirely true. The best way to think about it is the Sabbath is fulfilled in Sunday. So it's not the Christians ignore the Sabbath, but the Sabbath has been transformed and there's a bit of nuance there. It's worth looking at the catechism section on that particular commandment. He then asks, is there a clear passage from the Bible that the that the practice of Christianity about Sabbath was Sunday? Or is it the case that Jesus and all the apostles actually have a
daily Mass found in Acts? This is a good deep question because although the book of Acts is very clear that they had the Eucharistic Masses, it says that quite a few times. The book of Acts might give you the impression that they did that every day and that there was no particular special thing about Sunday, because the book of Acts says several times they
gathered daily to break bread. But I think there is actually a development even in the book of Acts to the point where they started to see, although they did gather daily, they started to see Sunday as special. So by the time we get to Acts chapter 20, it says upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, and then it goes on from there. That is the first reference to this idea that the first day of the week is when the disciples
came together to break bread. Now, that's not necessarily conclusive because it could just be saying that the event that that passage is talking about happened on Sunday when they were gathering to break bread. But we also do have some other places where this idea of the Lord's Day is mentioned, particularly the the apocalypse or the Book of Revelation.
John, early in that book says I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. So that term, the Lord's Day, is actually in Scripture, although it seems to have developed a little later in the New Testament. So it's probably reasonable to say that the special emphasis on Sunday as the Lord's Day is indeed Apostolic, but it didn't develop straight away in the book of Acts.
It actually took a little while to develop, but certainly by the time of the close of the New Testament, there's absolutely really clean emphasis on the Lord's Day as Sunday. We have this confirmed in the Didikay, which is one of the earliest Christian writings from the bishops that is not in the New Testament. So the DDK says every Lord's Day, gather yourselves together and break bread. So, but by that point, it had become a commandment.
So hopefully that's helpful. And that was a really good question. Mondani. Next, we have a question about the Trinity. And we actually do get quite a few questions about the Trinity on this podcast, which shows that it really is the central mystery of the faith. It is one that a lot of people struggle to get their heads around. And indeed, there is an aspect of it that is a mystery. But as I often do recommend in this podcast, have a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The authors of the Catechism have drawn richly on tradition and on Church teaching to make the Church's teachings clear and detailed. And they actually have a really good section in the Catechism towards the start of the Catechism about the Trinity. So Celeste's question is, if we believe in one God and only Jesus is Incarnate, and Jesus says I am the father of one, how can be Jesus be seated at the
right hand of the Father? So I think Celeste's question is there's sort of multiple elements to it. Jesus is God Incarnate, so she's granting that, but then she's a bit confused by how can Jesus say I am the father of one and how can he also be seated at the right hand of the Father? Well, let's approach this from two different directions and hopefully this answers the question that she's getting at how can Jesus be Incarnate but also be seated at the right hand
of the Father? When we say Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, we mean after his resurrection and ascension, he's now seated at the right hand of the Father. So after Jesus came to earth and was what, When the Son was Incarnate as Jesus on earth, there was a sense in which he was not seated at the right hand of the Father, although he still
had the beatific vision. He still had that perfect communion with God the Father, but he wasn't really seated at the right hand of the Father in that sense. But after the ascension, he was seated at the right hand of the Father. So I hope that sort of begins to answer that part of the question. And then how can it be that Jesus and the Father are one if Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father?
So the question here seems to be how can Jesus and the Father be united but be in different places? That's sort of another element of this question. When Jesus says the Father and I are 1, he doesn't mean we are always in the same place at the same time or something like that. It doesn't mean that they are the same person, if you like. They are two persons of the same being, which means they can actually be in different locations even though they are united.
And so when Jesus says the Father and I are one, he's saying that they are perfectly united. They share the exact same substance. They are the same being, but they can be, if we were to put a physical description on it, they can be in different places. So when Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, the the second person of the Trinity is seated next to the first person of the Trinity. So they're still perfectly
united, but they're distinct. Hopefully that gets or starts together some of the mysteries of the Trinity. Whenever we talk about the Trinity, it is really easy to fall into heresy with some of the language that we use, and I'll try to be careful in my answer there. But once again, I would encourage you to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Around paragraph 200 of the Catechism, it starts to talk about it and it's really well worth reading.
I've got a question here from Vivian about Jesus teaching that my father's house has many rooms. And this is a really good question, actually. And theologians have different opinions about this. So Vivian says it is easy to understand that the Jerusalem temple was the model for the imagery. My father's house has many rooms.
And So what Vivian's talking about, there is a lot of scholars think that when Jesus says my father's house has many mansions or, or many rooms, more literally, it's conjuring up imagery of the temple. The temple in Jerusalem literally had lots of little rooms around the outside. So maybe that's part of it. She says this imagery may well refer to a state of intimate union with the Father instead of a physical structure. So yes, that is one
interpretation. When Jesus says my Father's house has many rooms, it's thinking more of remaining united to God. And it's a way of describing the relationship with the Father rather than an actual physical state of heaven. That's possible, but we'll go on to look at the other part of the question. What I cannot understand is what kind of preparation does the risen Lord have to do? So remember, Jesus in this section of John says to the apostles, my father's house has
many mansions. And then he goes on to say, I go to prepare a place for you. And so the question Vivian has is what? What does Jesus need to build in heaven? Isn't heaven already the perfect place? What is there to prepare is what she says. It's a really good question. And again, theologians have different opinions about what state is Jesus talking about. The first thing to say here is Jesus is drawing an analogy from wedding practices.
Remember in that culture, as we've talked about in this podcast, when a man and a woman were betrothed, then the next step was before they were consummated the marriage, the man would go and literally build an extension or some sort of house for him and his wife to dwell in. And that could take some time. So when Jesus says to his bride, his apostles, I go to prepare a place for you, that's the
primary meaning his drawing. Whenever Jesus draws an analogy, we need to be careful not to be too literal with it. Maybe Jesus doesn't mean every aspect of this analogy to be literally the case. Maybe we shouldn't see Jesus as literally building a structure in heaven. He's just drawing an analogy about this idea that he needs to go away to prepare for our arrival in some way. Having said that, what can we say then what? What is what does it mean to say Jesus needs to go and prepare
room for us in heaven? I think there's the sort of hints to this answer in the Gospel of John itself. Remember, Jesus says in this gospel where I go, you cannot come. So there's this idea that at least not yet no one can go to heaven until Jesus has gone there. So I think that's that's sort of what's in mind here when it says I go to prepare a place for you.
That the theology being talked about here is before anyone can really enter heaven, enter the fullness of heaven, Jesus as God Incarnate has to go there himself. Jesus in his body has to be taken up to heaven as the first glorified human to be able to go there. That will then allow other glorified humans later to go there. So I think the best way to think about this is it's talking about the new heavens and new earth. This final state where people will have redeemed bodies.
That was not possible until God became Incarnate and in his Incarnate body had a glorified body which then went to heaven. That in a sense opened up the gates of heaven in the sense of enabling the new heavens and new earth to be possible. I think that's one way of reading it. Other people read it even, as it's not possible for any soul even to get into the presence of God in the full sense until
Jesus is sent to heaven. That's another possible interpretation, but hopefully those give you some some things to work with, She goes on. Jesus also told the apostles that he has shown them everything, given them everything, so that they can go to heaven. Even on the part of the apostles, all the preparation they need to do is to continue believing in Jesus and live his
teachings. So I think this is answered in what we just said, which is, well, you're quite right that on the apostles part, that's all they need to do. But in order for anyone to get into heaven in the 1st place, the first step is that Jesus has to do something when he goes to heaven. And we just discussed what that is. So I think your understanding of this is quite right, Vivian, and you've asked a really good question and hopefully what I've said has been helpful in
clarifying that. I've got a question here from Matthew, and it's about that passage in Matthew's Gospel where it says it is easier, where Jesus says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. And this particular phrase, as you know, has been the subject of a lot of controversy. A lot of people have tried to get around this by saying that, well, there's a few different explanations.
One of them is that when it says camel going through the eye of the needle, that's actually a reference to a real gate in Jerusalem, where camels would literally have to pass through the gate by bending down and then coming out the other side. And so someone who takes that interpretation would say, well, Jesus is saying that it's possible because camels do this all the time, but it's very hard and it takes work rather than Jesus teaching that it's actually impossible.
Now, I think there's a lot of problems with this interpretation and good scholarly commentaries will point this out that that's not a good way of understanding it. And the primary problem with that is that we have no record that there ever was such a gate in Jerusalem. That just seems like bad scholarship. It seems like this is isogesis where people are trying to get around some of Jesus hard teachings.
Now Matthew's question here relates to that Cyril of Eric Alexandria claimed that camel was a Greek typo where the biblical Greek camelos was written in place of the biblical Greek camelos, which means rope or cable. And therefore the better translation would be it is easier for an anchor cable to go through the eye of a needle than a for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God. So on this view, it's actually about a cable and not about a camel. But again, this is a minority
view. It's not really taken seriously by contemporary scholars. This is certainly it's a view that was endorsed by Cyril of Alexandria. But I suspect that in this case Cyril may well have been maybe motivated by the same thing where he didn't like what Jesus words were, so he tried to come up with another explanation of how they have arrived in our text as some sort of scribal error. And indeed, we do believe scribal errors can happen, but we don't have good evidence that
it has happened here. And Matthew goes on to say, I like this visual metaphor of having to unload a camel before it can pass through the gate as a dovetail strongly with breaking free of attachments. Almost a Buddhist view given the school of thought, strong focus on detachment from material things. Now that part is is actually a good point. Jesus does talk about being free
of attachments. And you can sort of see how this visual image of the camel having to be unloaded of everything before it can go in does sort of fit a little bit. But again, the key problem is camel passing through the eye of a needle. There's no evidence that this needle is a reference to any particular gate. At least that's what contemporary scholars are saying. So Matthew goes on to say he prefers that it was maybe a scribal error.
My preference is that we should take this as Jesus says it, which is as we discussed in the episode, he's talking about one of the biggest animals that people in that culture could conceive of passing through one of the smallest objects that people in that culture could conceive of. That's how the metaphor works. If you try and take out those elements, the metaphor doesn't work.
Jesus point is, it's impossible. It's now he's using hyperbole here in his visual image, much like when he says you need to take the plank out of your own eye. And as we know it's not possible for someone's for a plank to be in someone's eye. So it's kind of like a really graphic over exaggerated image. It's the same thing happening here. But the point Jesus wants to make is something like this is incredibly hard and and the point he makes is that it's impossible without God's help.
In fact, he goes on to say that so I think it fits much better and contemporary scores would say if it's much better to interpret it that way rather than trying to say it has something to do with a camel bending down to get through a gate. But I have received a few
questions about that very thing. So you can see it is a view that's out there that people are trying to come up with alternate explanations for because they don't love this idea of a rich man being finding it difficult to get into the Kingdom of God because we are, you know, 21st century Western society. We do have a lot of rich people around. But I hope that that comment was helpful and it sort of covers, it's a response to lots of questions that have come in.
But I would encourage you to do a bit more research on that if you're interested in this issue of whether there was a camel's gate or not. Most scholars are saying that there really wasn't. So we have a bit of a different question now from Ethne. She says an issue was raised on Catholic radio that I was listening to. Is it ever permissible to tell a lie? And if so, does the Bible support this? For example, telling the Gestapo that you are not hiding Jews in
your home when you are? This was narrated in Corrie 10 brooms The Hiding Place and some Catholic, and she mentions someone here. Someone on Catholic media suggested that it was never permissible, but I think the Old Testament might support the odd distortion of truth. Now, what you're saying here is true. There is a discussion amongst Catholic theologians, particularly moral theologians, about whether it's ever OK to
tell a lie. This isn't a strictly biblical question, so I have no particular expertise on this. A lot of people in church history, I believe Augustine was very strong on saying you can never tell any sort of lie even it's just if it's to save the life of others. I think some contemporary Thomas scholars still believe that it's never OK to tell a lie. It's an ongoing discussion.
Because you are quite right that in the Old Testament there's a few places where God seems to do some deception himself. And then there's certainly places where he approves of deception done by other people. So it's not, yeah, it's not a clear issue. The best place to go, as I say, with most issues, is the Catechism. The Catechism in its part three section of moral theology has some interesting teaching there about lying.
It does say you must always uphold the truth, and it has quite a long section about the importance of telling the truth and people have a right to truth. So with all that said, that so far would seem to imply that in that famous case where someone knocks on the door and says are you hiding Jews in the house, then based on that you would have to tell the truth. However, the Catechism does add
a bit of nuance here. The Catechism doesn't settle the question, but it does seem to imply that there are times when you don't have to do that. So I'm going to read here from paragraph 2489 from the Catechism. Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication.
The good and safety of others, respect for privacy and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion.
No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. So in that paragraph, the Catechism doesn't say you can ever lie, but what it does say is that you in some situations where someone is asking for the truth, you can either remain silent or you can use discreet language. And that that means that you can answer the question without without revealing the full truth. So that is the compromise position that the Catechism has taken.
And that is the position that we should take as Catholics. So when you hear Catholic commentators say it's never OK to tell a lie, the Catechism would seem to back that up. However, there is another part of that story which is you're not always obligated to tell the full truth either. So it's a very interesting question in moral theology.
I hope that helps you, Ethne. We've got a question here from Vivian and this is a question about hell and it's a really good question because it's not one that a lot of people know. Can I seek your clarification on the below statement? She asks. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that everybody will have an will have a body in the afterlife, even those in hell will have a body. So that is something that was mentioned in a previous episode, she says. I got a bit confused when I
heard this. I recall from several talks about the end times that upon death, the soul separates from the body and undergoes particular the soul undergoes particular judgement. At the second coming, Last Judgement, the body of the just, including the souls in purgatory, will be resurrected and reunited with the soul in
heaven. So everything she said so far is spot on. But for those souls who at the particular judgement was sentenced to eternal punishment, they won't be part of those whose bodies will be resurrected and reunited with their souls in hell. This is my understanding. How can souls in hell have bodies then? So Vivian, actually the church, although it doesn't say a lot about this in the Catechism. Yeah, the church's teaching is that everybody will have a body
of sorts in the afterlife. And one of the key texts this is based on is John chapter 5, verse 29. Do not be amazed at this. This is Jesus speaking for the hour is coming, when all those who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgement. So do you notice that phrase
there? There's going to be a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgement, which means that those who are already in separated from God, their souls are separated from God in hell. In the general final judgement, they will also be resurrected into a body and then condemned to hell in their body. It's also backed up by Daniel 12 verse 2. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt.
And Acts 2415. I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So there it is. It's quite clear in Scripture that there will be a resurrection of the wicked, and theologians have discussed what it might look like for someone in hell to have a body and how exactly that suffering and hell will look like, given that people will have bodies. So that is actually part of church teaching.
It's not often the way we describe things. Often we describe it as though only those in the final new heavens and new earth will have a body of a sort that will have a glorified body, but also those in the final how will also suffer in their body. And there's reasons why they suffer in their body too, that theologians have developed. I hope that helps answer your really good question, Vivian. So got a question here from Raymond asking about the middle
coming. And this is actually a common question that we get in this podcast. We do cover the Olivet Discourse and other similar prophecies of Jesus where he talks about the destruction of the temple in AD 70. And in this podcast, we've talked about how some scholars refer to that event as Jesus middle coming. So he had a first coming when he was incarnated on earth and had his ministry.
And then he had a middle coming, which was a specific judgement of Jesus on the Jewish leadership in AD 70. We've talked about that a lot in the podcast. And then he's going to have a second coming in the future. So it's been given the title middle coming by scholars. Now he wants to know where is this title Middle coming called that in the tradition. Now as far as I'm aware from the reading I've done on this, it's not typically called the middle coming in older church tradition.
However, church fathers did often refer. They did often discuss the Olivet Discourse and they would often say it has been fulfilled in the destruction of the temple so that they interpreted it the same way that we're interpreting it in this podcast. Not all of them, by the way, but a lot of them understood Jesus apocalyptic language to be a reference to the destruction of the temple. And then recent scholars have given this view or this event.
They've given it the label the Middle Coming. If you're interested in this topic, can I recommend? There's a book I recommend sometimes in this podcast on the topic of the Olivet Discourse and the Middle Coming, which is called Rapture End Times error that leaves the Bible behind. It's by David Curry, a Catholic biblical scholar who dives right into the text of the Olivet Discourse.
And in that book, he actually quotes from several church fathers who are making the exact same point, which is that they believed these events were fulfilled in AD 70. It's a really well written book on a topic that not many scholars have been willing to talk about.
But given that a lot of the Gospels talk involve this prophecy of Jesus, we've actually spent a bit of time in the podcast talking about it. And for many people, it's the first time they've heard this information about the middle coming. So I hope that gives you a brief answer to your question. And that resource is one that I
do recommend diving into. We've got a question here from Jonathan. And Jonathan is asking about that phrase in the in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, if someone slaps you on the right cheek, then offer your left also. And this is indeed one of Jesus most radical teachings. It's a bit harder to accept. And he says in your exegesis, it sounded like you were saying that Jesus was inviting his listeners to endure and receive further abuse. And I've heard that
interpretation before. Indeed, that is the interpretation that we offered in this podcast is that when Jesus says if someone slaps you, slaps you on the right cheek off your left, he's saying you don't need to retaliate. Be willing to endure suffering. I think that is what he's teaching. He goes on to say but, and then he's quoting from a specific well known Catholic media teacher says that the left hand would be considered unclean.
So turning to face that direction was less an invitation or acceptance of another strike offering the face to be struck there, but instead a bold but simple way of declaring that the person struck would not be struck again. It seemed in a very astute observation. I was wondering if you had heard this or knew how true it was of the culture at the time. So I haven't actually heard this interpretation before, so it's an interesting one. The left hand would be considered unclean.
So turning to face that direction was less an invitation or acceptance of another strike, but instead of simple way of declaring that it wouldn't be struck again. It's interesting and I do see how that interpretation works. However, I think there's a couple of problems with it. So firstly, remember in the podcast we said that if someone slaps you on the right cheek, and that's the way the the scripture there is written. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, then turn it off your left.
But if someone think about it, if someone's slapping you on the right cheek, that person's facing you and they've slapped you on the right cheek, it would have been their left hand that did the slapping. So hopefully you can picture
that. So this interpretation that someone's left hand is unclean and would never do any slapping, which seems to maybe be part of the interpretation that's being offered here, doesn't make sense because Jesus has assumed that people will be slapped on their right cheek, which would be by someone's left hand. So I'm not sure that this left hand is unclean, therefore it would never do any slapping.
Interpretation works. But also this is a really good lesson in a rule of exegesis, which is look at the surrounding context. Is there anything else before or after it that would amplify the meaning of it? And there is this is 1 little example Jesus gives among many. Remember there's in the Sermon on the Mount. He goes on to say if someone makes you walk one mile, go another mile. If someone would want to take one of your clothes, offer a second item of clothing as well.
So it only we really need to interpret the slap you on the left cheek, right cheek in relation to those others. What's the point of all three of them? The point that Jesus wants to make with all three of them is if someone abuses you, be willing to endure further abuse. That is the best way to interpret this passage, I think.
And I hope that that was a helpful clarification for you in seeing how we should interpret things in in accordance with what's happening in the surrounding words as well. Last question we'll look at today is from Vivian again, she's asking about Matthew chapter 6, verses 7 to 15. This is when Jesus gives the our Father prayer and you know,
exegesis on that episode. We looked particularly at verse 13 and 14, which is when Jesus says do not put us to the test or as we often say in our prayers, in our version of the our Father, do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. So we talked there about the best way to understand, lead us not into temptation. There's a lot of controversy about that because the letter of James says that God does not tempt people.
So we talked about maybe the best way to think about this is God is I pray to God not to put us to the test because we know that God does test people. And so maybe this is a prayer saying where possible, God do not put me to the test. We also looked at how does that relate to the next verse about
deliver us from the evil one. One of the things that was mentioned in that episode is that in the Italian lectionary translation that has recently that phrase do not lead us into temptation has been deliberately change to something more like do not put us to the test. So that's in the Italian Our Father when it's said in the Italian liturgy. And so Vivian's question is why has the Pope not instructed the amendment of the word temptation for all lectionaries aside from
Italian? I'm not sure about that. That might be a question for a Canon lawyer. I suspect that it's because he's the Bishop of Rome, which is in Italy. He's exercising his authority there, probably through the the curia that is involved there. He's exercising his authority as the Bishop of the city of Rome to make that change for the churches in his in his area because he feels that that's prudent as the Bishop of that
area. But it seems that he didn't exercise his universal jurisdiction over the church in this matter. He didn't feel that it was a change that he wanted to insist on all across the world, but just in his diocese. I think that's probably the way to think about why this only happened in an Italian diocese. Hope that answers your question, and I hope you've found these answers helpful to everyone who's listened today.
We do get a lot of really interesting questions and I love being able to get into them, hopefully offer you some good answers. But I also think there's a lot of value in going through the process of talking about how we got to that answer. That's where really good teaching and learning happens. Hopefully all of this is helping you grow in your walk with God and enabling you to have a deeper understanding of Scripture. If you're listening to this today, please keep telling other
people about this podcast. It's the only daily Catholic podcast out there that gives you a deep dive into the literal sense of Scripture. Consider becoming a supporter. And you can also get access now to full chronological verse by verse audio commentaries on the Gospels. And you can see the link in the description for this episode to see which ones are currently available.
So that's a really good resource to find all the episodes for a particular gospel in one place in chronological order. Thanks so much for your support of this ministry. We'll get back into the regular episode next time.